yes and a three strike rule for everyone.

How about they lose the perk of working? How about they lose their job?

Losing free mail and parking isn't even a slap on the wrist. It's a slap in the face of every american.

The whole thing is pretty absurd, what is accomplished by drug testing welfare recipients, is this a GOP effort to balance the budget by kicking folks off of welfare? so the Dems want equal testing, sounds fair but shouldn't the consequence be equal as well. If I understand this the welfare folks would lose their welfare and the pols lose their parking space, really? But c'mon quit wasting time on crap like this in the first place, why not spend the time and money on maybe education, job training, teaching healthy living practices, why is everything some sort of punishment let's spend more time on positive redirection.

JR, it seems to be a christian thing. Retribution and punishment are huge in the christian faith, so that's how they tend to "think".

When republicans talk about union busting, one union they never mention is the prison worker's union.

Education is the best weapon we have against crime, and criminal behavior, but republicans don't want to pay the $500/mo. to educate the child, they would rather pay the $5000/mo. to incarcerate the adult.

Republicans aren't interested in actually addressing the problems we face as a nation, and they show it, every day, in every way.

So we get drug testing proposals for welfare recipients - and a failed test means no more welfare - but congresspeople not only aren't tested, the proposed punishment, should they be tested, is no more free parking??

Yeah, that's fair! Punish the poor because they deserve it, and let the wealthy do as they please because they've 'earned' it.

In Florida, Rick Scott owned the drug-testing company! Now his wife owns the controlling shares..... So you can see he's driven by profit motive alone.

What's the incentive in Indiana? Just more control over making the lives of the poor more miserable than they already are?

Republicans believe that people who are on welfare are on drugs. They see this as a first step to eliminating welfare altogether, nevermind that the testing in Florida proved a lower rate of drug use among welfare recipients than the general population.

That's why they don't want to take the tests themselves. It would only prove that our representatives are the ones with the spoon up their nose. Welfare recipients don't have the money to spend on drugs, even when they need their prescriptions.

Dontcha just love how AstraZenica may be able to help??

Hahaha! You're joking right? Yeah Americans in poverty can't afford drugs like they can't afford color TVs, videogame systems, and personal computers...

maybe they owned these things BEFORE they became poor? and have you ever tried to sell any theses things used? these days that stuff is worthless used. So your assumption that someone gets welfare and THEN buys color tvs, computers, etc is a little silly. also can you actually still buy B/W tvs?

It's been like that for years. Less than half a percent of the population is in need of food on a daily basis. The poor in the USA live better than the middle class did only fifteen years ago according to the census.

I'll be damned if I feel sorry for people being "burdened" by having to take a drug test to collect an otherwise free check. I have to take random drug tests for my money...because I have a job. Why are we coddling these people? The solution isn't more welfare, it's getting them in the workforce. Guess what, a lot of people in the workforce have to take drug tests to work.

samusx- Actually, 14.5% of the population experiences food insecurity, and 5.4% experience "extreme" insecurity.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

samsux, where are you getting your statistics?

Last time I checked, virtually every species living on this planet needs food on a daily basis, so what is this half a percent of what population coming from?

The solution is to bring back the jobs that have been sent overseas, not to persecute the people who watched their job leave our shores for a tax incentive.

I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the unemployed would like to be working, and I'd bet that 99% of the underemployed would love a job that not only used all their skills, but paid a living wage!

Just because you're willing to allow your civil rights to be trampled doesn't mean you have the right to trample others!

......I love this argument: people live better today than people used to live 100 years ago, therefore poverty doesn't exist. WHAT?! So wait- since people in Afghanistan have aqueducts and irrigation does that mean they now are no longer classified as a 3rd world nation? Come on now sam. But you also realize how circuitous your reasoning is, yes? Your logic is as follows: we give poor people food stamps so that they don't starve=> not many people in America are starving=> in order to be 'poor' you must be starving=> therefore not many Americans must be poor=> we should take away their food stamps since they must not be poor since they aren't starving.

The census bureau...They used meaningful terms unlike "insecure."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

@peanut9000, there are several skill industries right now that can't expand because there's no skilled labor to fill the jobs. The problem is there's a generation of college students with liberal arts degrees when we need a generation of engineers, mechanics, and electricians.

@ themouzer, if even the poorest of us have a high quality of life, then what are they complaining about? Their only complaint seems to be that they don't have the same quality of life as the rich.

Why am I supposed to feel pity for people that can't feed their family without food stamps but have monthly internet, cable, and cell phone bills? If my family was starving I'd drop these services before I took a handout.

So your argument is to cut the food stamps so that they will starve which will then validate the claim that they are poor which then will make you feel what? now justified in giving them food stamps? Please tell me you can see how circular your reasoning is. It's absurd.

FTR most facilities have to provide internet services as part of your rent by law. Additionally cell phone companies give out cell phones to the poor and put lower income families on special plans since the majority of Americans no longer use landlines. This is also done by law.

"The problem is there's a generation of college students with liberal arts degrees when we need a generation of engineers, mechanics, and electricians."

Oh yeah. I forgot how all of those plumbers, electricians, and contractors are out of work across Florida are out of work because of their college degrees. Like my 64 yr old step-father that went from $75k annually w/ GL Homes to unemployment. He still gets up at 4:45am every day and takes menial temp jobs with the few construction companies that still have projects. It's clearly his college degree that is holding him back. (read: he didn't graduate high school and struggles with reading.)

You're making assumptions that fit your pre-determined bias in order to validate that same bias. You don't know the first thing about what degrees people are getting nor do you have a clue who the people are that need government assistance.

Absolutely not what I said but nice try. I can tell you're not a tax payer otherwise you might be concerned by this.

And I've never lived in a facility where internet is mandated by law. That's a lie.

@ forcestrong, not true at all. You're making an assumption based on one personal case and letting it cloud your vision. You're actually doing exactly what you're accusing me of. And yes the statistics are very available to back up what I'm saying.

I said most facilities. It depends on what state you live in, but almost all rental properties provide free internet if it's an apartment complex. I've lived in Chicago, Boston, Denver, Albuquerque, and now here in Portland and I've never rented from an apartment complex that did not provide free internet services in some capacity. If you are renting a house that is a different story and it also doesn't usually apply to condos or other properties that are considered home-owned. This has to be something provided by property management. Most states require this by law. NOW sometimes they will only provide this as free wi-fi and you have to be located in certain areas, such as the common lounge that your complex provides. But otherwise it's free.

All persons in America pay taxes. Do I pay income tax? No. But your income taxes do not directly finance SSI benefits. What does directly benefit SSI benefits? Payroll taxes. I pay those and I pay them at about 22% of my income.

You stated that people cannot claim to be poor because they are not starving and because they have access to utilities. Thus you are using this definition as poverty as justification for why poverty doesn't exist and justification for why you can therefore cut the services that service poverty. Go back and read your statement: your logic is completely paradoxical. If you make the definition of poverty that someone must be starving in order for them to be poor (which is what you set as your criteria for the definition) then the only way someone is going to fit that definition is if they are starving. If no one is starving then, by your definition, they aren't poor and therefore don't need government services to prevent poverty. It's the most illogical statement you can make.

If statistics are available to back up what you're saying then provide them. Provide evidence that people who get liberal arts degrees are less employable than people who get other degrees. FTR the following are usually or always considered liberal arts degrees: psychology, economics, political science, criminal justice, IT, communications, linguistics, mathematics, and many science degrees are also considered liberal arts.

samusx is right. There just aren't enough people starving to death and being forced to eat their own babies. Terrible what that does to a nation's moral fiber, to not have folks so poor that they are forced to sell their children into being warm up bouts for dog fighting.

But we can take comfort at the recent spikes in meth lab fires and explosions, especially when there are children in the home. See, that kind of thing is good for our nation. Having these go getters who do the shake and bake in motel rooms or in their cars rather than submit to the grosds indignity of going on the public dime. This is the spirit that makes America the greatest nation in the world. The willingness to force kids into child prostitution and porn. With the money they make doing that, they won't NEED college educations.

What IS interesting though, is that they found that only 2% of people on public assistance failed Rick Scott's mandatory drug test when the national average is closer to 8.4 from '08 -'09.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k9state/MapAnyDU.pdf

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k9state/Ch2.pdf

Really you would expect to see higher rates of drug use among those who have the disposable income. Like the wealthy. Good luck getting THEM to piss in a cup.

As for your obvious enjoyment at having your bodily fluids seized and scrutized by your employer, clearly you would be at home under a far more fascist regime. One without fourth amendment search and seizure protections. One where cops can wake you up at gun point in the middle of the night because they can. Makes me feel all warm and snuggly and comforted just thinging about it.

Force children into prostitution? That's what you've got? So let me get this straight, I saw you complain that Newt Gingrich wanted children to work but you think it's more acceptable to prostitute them out than have them work?

Well I guess that's where you and me differ Don. If I was starving, I'd go dig ditches to feed my family. I've done it before and I'm not above doing it again. You? Apparently you'd start a meth lab and force your children into prostitution.

You're right, our moral fiber is falling apart.

By the way, I could care less if someone who's actually providing anything to society is on drugs. I just don't want my tax money, which I work hard for, to pay for someone on welfare to buy drugs. And hey, if it's only 2%, what does it matter anyway right?

Fourth amendment rights? NO ONE in this country has a "right" to welfare, so your argument is asinine. Only a liberal could piss and moan about getting a free ride.

You are the one making the argument that poor people just aren't poor enough. So how poor should they be? Feeding children to pit bulls for recreation is fine with you, for the right price? Eating one's own babies like they are in North Korea is acceptable, but child prostitution like they have in Southeast Asia is a bridge too far for you? Dark and twisted. I would think that it is better to be prostituted than eaten, but hey. Follow your bliss.

Why pay you to dig ditches when they can get Mexicans to do it for pennies on the dollar?

And in case it slipped your attention, homelessness - the direct result of letting the housing market bottom out the way Mittens recommends - doesn't leave you with the means and wherewithal to have the creature comforts you bemoan. But of course, if you don't see homeless people that means they don't exist. Kinda like compassionate conservatism.

By the way, I could care less if someone who's actually providing anything to society is on drugs. I just don't want my tax money, which I work hard for, to pay for someone on welfare to buy drugs. And hey, if it's only 2%, what does it matter anyway right?

So its not about the immorality of drug use, its about punishing and humiliating people who are poor. So not only are poor people morally inferior, they don't deserve the full rights and protections due them as American citizens. NICE. But if it is okay for wealthy people to do drugs, then it must be fine for them to pay for sex with children as well. Why else did those students riot at Penn State over Sandusky getting popped? "No, no...its OKAY if he rapes little boys. He's part of a really WINNING TEAM! We'll turn over newsvans in support of this child rapist! Those kids were poor anyway, its not like they had any future to ruin!"

Clearly, contributing members of society - like Sandusky - need to be held to a more lenient standard. After all, there are championships to win and politicians to buy and dividends to make fat for the shareholders. And if someone snorts alittle coke on the moneychanger's table while in the middle of business, what does it matter? We are all consenting and contributing adults here!

Fourth amendment rights? NO ONE in this country has a "right" to welfare, so your argument is asinine. Only a liberal could piss and moan about getting a free ride.

1. Fourth amendment search and seizure law. It means the police can't interfere with you without a warrant issued by a judge. Of course cops still violate this all the time with black Americans because of "stop and frisk" and Driving While Black or Brown. If white citizens were stopped frisked and shaken down at the same rate as black or brown Americans, they would call that a POLICE STATE. But you've got no problem with that I trust. Some cop or public official asks for your pee you'd just ask for a cup and give it to him on the spot, so of course you don't have any problem with having people on public assistance getting their civil rights violated.

EVERYONE has the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Tyranny is not justified when it happens to the poor or minorities. That's why America seperated from England in the first place.

2. Didn't Christ say Render unto Caesar unless you are his good friend and have slid him plenty in contributions, in which case we can let you slide on just how much you render? No, he did not.

Not even Christ would say that people are entiltled to tax breaks or govt energy subsidies. You want to talk about economic warfare?

"Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

"As you do it for the least of them, you do it for me....As you do it to the least of them, you do it to me."

So yeah, let's talk about the moral breakdown at work in our nation. We've been going to hell since Reagan.

You really are starting to blather on now without a point. This is getting really entertaining.

Sam, just because you don't understand his point doesn't mean Don doesn't have one!

What's entertaining is watching you stretch to make an argument you can't justify.

peanut, there's that liberal arrogance. You think because I don't agree I'm not smart enough. But when you don't agree with me, my argument is crap.

I mean for some reason Don thinks we have an emperor and apparently thinks he speaks for God. Everything Don says is his belief about what someone else's intentions are. I call that blathering. It doesn't matter anyway.

If anything this blog has shown me just how out of touch with reality the far left is. I'd love to know the average education level of the posters here. And I'd be willing to bet that few, if any, of the posters actually pay any federal income taxes. Which is ironic because they just want to take more money from the people that make their lives possible and hate those people at the same time. Oh well, no one who's a failure in life wants to believe it's them. I guess I can just expect to support a tiny amount of people who really need my help and millions more who are completely incompetent for the rest of my life. Greece here we come.

I'm arrogant for pointing out that you missed Don's point? Your argument is crap, it has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with you.

Education? Really, you want to go there?? I have a PhD in Psychology, an MA in English, a BA in Graphic Design and an AA in Web Design. I can breed and train your horses from the ground up.

I've also been unemployed for two years, though I keep searching and sending out resumes at a rate of 5 per day, every day including weekends. I have applied for unemployment insurance, which I paid into for decades, and have been told I don't qualify. I'm not asking for a hand-out, I'm asking for what I've paid into and deserve. I'm asking for a job that uses my skills and pays a living wage.

The left is foundering on the right-wing policies that give all the money to the rich and leave nothing for the rest of us, and we object. Ironically, the right is also foundering on these policies because half of the entire population of the United States is living at or below the poverty line. So those of you supporting the right-wing-nuts and making less than 250,000.00/yr are fools, and we will continue pointing this out to you whether or not you want to hear it.

I mean for some reason Don thinks we have an emperor and apparently thinks he speaks for God.

You mean the false prophet Ronald Reagan under who's banner this nation is being destroyed. Bush and Cheney were both devout believers in the Church of Reaganism and they out-Reaganed him in every way that matters. And look at the fruit they bore...Wall Street meltdown [Bush-Cheney]/ Stock Market Crash 1987[Reagan]; from multi-billion dollar surplus to multi-multi trillion dollar deficits in two terms [Bush/Cheney]/ introduction of multitrillion dollar deficits for the first time in American history [Reagan]. TARP - Toxic Asset Relief Program [and yes, that was a BUSH initiative, John Boehner was crying like a little girl with a skinned knee to get it passed, for BUSH]/ Savings and Loan Bailouts from "junk bonds" [REAGAN!]

Drawing a direct line from Reagan and his policies and its consequences to Bush/Cheney and their policies and those consequences, what can we reasonable expect for the nation under the next conservative cretin who rides in under the aegis of Ronnie with promises to out Bush Bush they way they did Reagan? It looks like the end of the show to me. Goodbye America!

And Christ stands there shaking his head saying "I told you so!"

Congratulations on spending a fortune on an education that can't put dinner on the table. Maybe what you "deserve" is to be knocked back down to earth and reality. The job you're qualified for is the one that you can land. As far as I can tell, you're not qualified to be a fry cook.

Now I know why you don't like the free market. There's no market for you. Maybe you should go back to school and become an electrician. There's a nation wide shortage. Or are you above that?

Don, blah blah blah. You're delusional if you think you know what God wants.

There is no god, and magical thinking doesn't make you seem any smarter.

Why pay you to dig ditches when your kid will dig them for 1/30th the salary?

I'm just going by what Christ said in the New Testament.

Christ said "I told you so"?

The Sheep and the Goats

Matthew 25:

³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

⁴⁴ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

⁴⁵ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Good job! You've just proven my point exactly!

He's talking about the starving and destitute, of which there are very little of in the USA. Why aren't liberals focusing on the starving in other countries and not the poor in the USA who are living lavish lifestyles?

Again the poor just aren't poor enough to suit you. How poor is poor enough for you? Poor enough to resort to prostitution? Drug dealing and manufacture? We've got plenty of that in Oklahoma...its not just a inner city problem. Not to mention rural poverty.

Round and round. I'm getting off the merry-go-round.

Resort to? Typical liberal victim mentality! "I could get a job but it would be easier to do something illegal."

It's not worry over getting caught. It's b/c they are upright and moral, therefore, drug tests are an insulting invasion of privacy, while poor people are untrustworthy and drug tests are moral litmus to see if they deserve to eat.

THE ANSWER IS YES."Half of the legislature would face random drug testing during each session". Obviously their worried that everyone will test positive and they wont have a government.

"Obviously their worried that everyone will test positive and they wont have a government."

From where I'm sitting, we barely have a government now.

There are also many false positives when testing... if someone tests falsely positive it makes them ineligible for assistance. That would be compounding tragedy.

drug tests are an insulting invasion of privacy

That's it, exactly. We have laws to prevent that kind of thing. It's called the Constitution, the horror Republicans hate with a passion and boast about never reading. Small government for criminal elite who rob the public treasury of trillions and big government for everyone else, it's all they know.

"BUT I am willing to take the test because I have nothing to hide!" HEY! me and the boys here were wondering if you'd like to post your home address here - so we can come over while you pee pee in a dixie cup: look in your house, look in your car, look under your daughter's dress, tear up your front yard, and see what you might have there. - you know, you have nothing to hide? right? or are you one of those pansy "liberals" that hides behind the constitution and demand your wussy "search and seizure" BS? aw, heck - don't make me find out your IP address to your computer and find your home address! like, you know: if you had something to hide or anything... You have nothing to hide helavagal :) we'd all like to know where you live and see what you really don't have to hide...

fiscal conservatism = blowing HUGE wads of cash to feel safe in our own delusions...

@Ron Chusid- I agree that someone using drugs at home and is not harming anyone should be left alone. What I have issue with is someone basically being subsidized by tax payer money to take drugs at home and not support themselves with a job.

we should use the poor for target practice! after all, they ARE just a drain on the system, they'll just blow all that $$$ for booze or drugs - like, why can't they just be happy being poor!?!? - like, what the hell is THEIR problem!? only rich people who own / operate every thing should be able to use booze and drugs...

c'mon conservatives!!! why are we jacking around with pee tests!? just gas the freaking poor...

1st one that makes over $200,000 gets to light the match!!!

I've heard your type of argument before...Philosophically, you chose to join a Union and your line of work...so do poor people chose to be poor? On a more realistic argument, either your Union or the Employer pays for those drug tests. It's already been proven by the fiasco in Florida that the cost of implementing drug testing Food Stamp recipients far outweigh the cost of kicking those that tested positive off the program. Case in point: " The Department of Children and Families' central region has tested 40 applicants since the law went into effect six weeks ago, and of those 40 applicants, 38 tested negative for drugs. The cost to the state of Florida to reimburse those 38 individuals who tested negative was at least $1,140 over the course of six weeks. Meanwhile, denying benefits to the two applicants who tested positive will save Florida less than $240 a month."
Again, you could argue that it save $240 a month over a long course of time...and those that use drugs shouldn't get food stamps or unemployment...but when does the cost of catching a small percentage of people using drugs outweigh punishing all those that do not. For every dollar that is used to catch someone that is NOT using is a dollar that could have gone to help MORE people!
And people want to make the argument that anyone that gets federal funding should be tested...then by all means, start lining up the CEO's of major corporations, oil companies, farmers or anyone else that gets subsidies from our government.

All forms of government aid are welfare. This is important for people to understand. You aren't getting drug tested because you receive medicare (which is also welfare) or student loans (welfare) or because you're using your VA benefits (welfare). You're getting drug tested because you're on unemployment or because you're using food stamps or WIC. Some of these proposals also include people who live in public housing. They aren't trying to protect your tax dollars which is why they don't require that all people receiving government aid get drug tested. They only want to target specific groups of people receiving specific types of aid. FTR more than 3/4 of those who receive food stamps work at least 1 full time job w/ the majority working more than that. AND that 1/4 that remains? The majority of those recipients are disabled persons or elderly citizens. A lot of food stamp recipients are privates or anyone below the rank of E4 in the US military. It strikes me as so funny how people pretend to be patriotic...ya know, except for that PFC who just had a daughter. Then he's an asshat who must be poor and lazy for taking food stamps and shopping on the commissary.

Excellent point. We should require drug tests of oil company executives, Wall Street executives, and bank executives before giving them their subsidies and bailouts. Also of people whose main income is carried interest, since their lower tax rate is a form of subsidy that all other Americans have to support.

I have been employed at various jobs for over 16 years, and I have had to take ONE drug screening. Even if we are willing to accept your dictatorial ideology, your lack of knowledge on this topic is literally dangerous to others. One in every three times a drug screening gives positive results, it is a FALSE positive. So, I guess you're cool with ruining countless innocent lives? You would rather see a thousand innocent men hang than one guilty man go free? Pretty typical childish attitude- "punish those guys over there as severely as possible, but when I get up to malfeasance, it's because I'm an American Hero, and you should throw me a parade!"

Wall Street executives, and bank executives, people whose main income is carried interest

I believe those who pay a flat 15% capital gains do NOT pay FICA, which is 15.3% (temporarily reduced as stimulus), making a multimillion yearly income taxed LOWER that the minimum wage.

NO!

Educated people might start thinking for themselves, and we can't have that!

Sparrow! Pumpkin! Bubblegum!

Sorry, duplicate post!!

There isn't money for direct employment programs. You know, actually hiring the poor so they can work for a living, but apparently there's plenty of money to ostracize people on public assistance.

Maybe we can find a solution between the two options: Hire the poor to spy on the other poor. Then poor people can have enough money for food, shelter and healthcare, and the paranoid conservatives can still feel safe that their money isn't going to help anyone who's addicted to drugs.

Because God forbid we give any help to anyone but a stereotypical "Homeless with a heart of Gold." "We'll save little orphan annie, but if she drinks or smokes than she deserves to die."

Vox! There's money, but we've decided to let the rich have it.

Agreed. And what might drive some people to drugs and drink? Perhaps being unemployed, underemployed and unable to return to what once was (a good paying job with benefits). This could make once highly productive members of society permanently depressed and downtrodden.

Removing their human dignity could be the last straw, one from where there is no opportunity to return.

Exactly, "Why don't we treat the poor as if they were criminals? What harm could it do?"

"Just so long as we understand that the Fifth Amendment, and the concepts of "Innocent until proven guilty" and "the rights of the accused" only apply to certain income levels."

Maybe they can make a handy chart so we know at what level you lose each civil liberty.

If anyone thinks that their money going to help these people means that they purchased some kind of right to violate their privacy, they should please let us know how much we should pay to be able to violate theirs.

"You drive on public roads, you are protected by a public army, you are the recipient of tons of federal dollars in hundreds of different tiny ways every day. So what do we get to do to you?"

It's the first step toward having an official caste system in America, officially setting the poor as second class citizens. Because they need help we get to dictate the terms of their lives. We paid for their food after all, we bought them.

It isn't that they aren't to be trusted or because they have been singled out to be picked on. its (in my case) because I work hard to provide the funds that they receive and am tested regularly to be able to work why am I tested? Is it because I cant be trusted or because they can? If the workers dont subject to testing then they get fired, if they get fired then there are no more taxes being collected and then no money for aid. Why is it such a stretch to put those receiving tax dollars for free on the same field as those working to provide those dollars?

You. Don't. Own. People.

Do you get it?

I don't care if you helped them.

I don't care if you think they might be using drugs.

I don't care if you've been submitted to drug testing. It was wrong. You don't turn around and make it better by forcing it on the poor.

You. Don't. Get. To. Make. People. Dance.

Dance for Your Dollar, Sing for your supper, tolerate a little violation of your privacy, fifth amendment rights and human dignity. Because you're poor. Because the government is holding the food above your head, and as long as you can't afford to stand on your own, than you can be forced to endure anything the middle class wants.

Jump through hoops.

You'll catch a few drug users, an occasional dealer.

And all it will cost is the Dignity of every innocent person on Welfare. Oh, and the time and money that will be spent enforcing the program.

I know you think that it's horrible that some people abuse the system, but the solution isn't to make the system abuse the people.

VOX !!!

I was going to jump in on the arguing part but I can't improve on what you've posted in a few spots.

BRAVO !! all well said

I work hard to provide the funds that they receive and am tested regularly to be able to work why am I tested?

....um this isn't preschool. What happens to you doesn't necessarily mandate it happens to someone else. You are tested as an agreement w/ your employment. You aren't forced to take that employment and you can find employers out there who don't require that you get drug tested. People who are poor don't exactly have control over their situation and you're using them as a kicking can to demagog the issue of public assistance.

Why is it such a stretch to put those receiving tax dollars for free on the same field as those working to provide those dollars?

There is no such thing as receiving government assistance for nothing. Every single time you spend money you pay taxes. Everyone pays taxes. Poor people pay into the very same assistance programs at the same rate that you pay. By your logic they should get to make you prove you're not on drugs before you receive your medicare or social security.

They should test him for it. It IS the public dime after all! I'm not paying taxes so that he can go around hopped up on speed-balls when he retires! We demand assurances. Piss in this cup!

Marlana, here is something you aren't getting. People use illegal drugs. Regardless of social class or economic standing, people use drugs.

But people don't resort to SELLING drugs until they feel that they are without legitimate recourse. It doesn't even require a GED.

That is why drug dealing is so common in the underclasses - there really isn't much to lose. It was crack dealing during the Reagan disaster. Now it is cooking meth - a really big hit here in my hometown of Tulsa.

Crack did not become REALLY popular until Reagan had his chance to wage war on welfare queens and gut social spending. Cause and effect. Just saying.

Do as I say, not as I do!

They only want to test the types of welfare they have demonized. Governmental assistance to corporations is considered "smart money." Governmental assistance in the forms of VA benefits, the GI bill, other soldier based benefits, student loans, business loans, etc.- all of that is considered smart money. They aren't wanting to test everyone on welfare. Just...ya know...the ones who need food stamps and WIC and public housing. You know- the people who most need assistance.

Christopher a poppy seed bagel is not going to register on a drug screen. There is a threshold that opiates and other substances have to surpass to be flagged. I agree that its ridiculous that legislatures are looking at knee jerk policies rather than strengthen education (of all forms).

scooter-- sorry to pop your bubble but there are MANY foods and legal over-the-counter drugs that will cause a hot urine test. Poppy seeds 'can' hit. Depends on if the kit is properly stored and not expired. (you'd be surprised how many outfits used expired kits. Who checks, huh ?)

When I was in a treatment program we were given a huge list of foods, drinks and OTC drugs we were forbidden to eat/use during the program. Guys would still test hot (urine) and have to have a confirming blood test. I went hot for a week for THC because I'd decided to lose some weight and started intense exercise. As I lost fat, THC was released and I went hot. I nearly got tossed over that but a really smart doctor figured it out.

That's just one tiny example of the types of "legal" issues that will come up. False tests will be a huge new area of law, I'm sure.

My point is "What are the consequences to such a policy?"

Losing a laptop or a parking space is nothing in comparison to losing your home or self respect. The jobless on welfare have so many hurdles to overcome. These hurdles have been observed since the great depression.

What is a lap top to a paid elected official in comparison to a sandwich to a starving man?

Honest men and woman who are basically down on their luck because our beloved "job creators" have seen fault in the applicant. Whether these faults are from narcotics, depression, age, appearance, or just plain old "lack of confidence". People out of work, who are on welfare, have an uphill climb and through their own depression would be willing to do anything just to get out of welfare - even going so far as taking a job that is a fraction of their worth.

But I digress.

Asking a law maker, who was elected in the perception that they are law abiding members of our society, should be held to a higher standard as their actions can make or break the common citizen. While I do not condone drug use for anyone, I can certainly understand why anyone there would take to drink. Being on welfare is a stigma given by people who have never experienced job loss and will never understand it until they do.

While law makers on the conservative side might call those on the left "bleeding hearts", a "bleeding heart" is exactly the type of compassion a law maker needs to fully empathize with his electorate in this case.

totally agree with you

What I love is that Republicans loooove arguing that poverty doesn't exist in America because so many poor people have a place to live and we have barely anyone who starves to death. Republicans will openly tell you, while touting how non-existent poverty in America is, that this is because programs like WIC and public housing are so effective. And then they'll turn right around and say 'which is why we should cut those programs.' Because...you know....them not being dead is evidence that they're greedy SOBs, I guess.

That is one of the dumbest statements that I've ever heard. The circular logic there is amazing.

How many trillions of dollars have we spent on the "war on poverty"? Has it worked? Absolutely not. It's a political shell game by the Democrats to pay for voters. I mean it's absolutely brilliant!

Democrats are telling everyone on entitlements, "Hey, if you don't vote for us, you'll lose all your free money. If you do vote for us, we'll take more from those evil rich people and give more to you."

Quit pretending this is about helping the poor. This is about keeping your voting block.

It's a political shell game by the Democrats to pay for voters. I mean it's absolutely brilliant!

Damn right! The Democrats, then called "Patriots", overthrew the aristocratic class personified by "the present King of Great Britain" and instituted a government the derives its authority from the people because governments "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed". The Loyalists did not disappear and now call themselves Republicans. How dare, say they, that the government serve the people! Any money not given to the rich is wasted. Returning public money to the people as benefits so the people vote to support that government is an affront to aristocratic privilege based on birthright and noblesse oblige.

Watch the ownership class rewrite the Constitution to serve the rich, as in "corporations are people" so "We the People" becomes "We the Corporate Elite". The aristocratic class is trying to "take the country back" right before your very eyes.

Samusx says #2.6: Less than half a percent of the population is in need of food on a daily basis. The poor in the USA live better than the middle class did only fifteen years ago according to the census.

Samusx then says #14.6: How many trillions of dollars have we spent on the "war on poverty"? Has it worked? Absolutely not.

So which one is it Sam? Has our war on poverty worked so well that poverty in America can't be claimed because of how well even the poorest among us live? OR has the war on poverty not worked which is why you can't claim that there is no poverty in America? Either your first statement is incorrect or your second statement is incorrect.

As I was saying Republicans will argue that there is no such thing as poverty in America and they will point to the success of food stamps, WIC, and public housing as to why there is no longer poverty in America. They will then turn around and state that we must eliminate these programs because, since there is no poverty, that means the people who are using these benefits must be abusing the system since they can't possibly be poor. You, Sam, then state that this logic is circular. Since it was your logic to begin w/ (you agree w/ my assertion by your response) then you are openly admitting that your logic is circuitous and therefore illogical.

It's a political shell game by the Democrats to pay for voters. I mean it's absolutely brilliant!

The disenfranchised who receive these benefits are also a demographic unlikely to vote. Try again.

From Wikipedia:

Noblesse oblige is a French phrase literally meaning "nobility obliges".

The Dictionnaire de l’Académie française defines it thus:

1. Whoever claims to be noble must conduct himself nobly.
2. (Figuratively) One must act in a fashion that conforms to one's position, and with the reputation that one has earned.

The Oxford English Dictionary says that the term "suggests noble ancestry constrains to honorable behavior; privilege entails to responsibility". Being a noble meant that one had responsibilities to lead, manage and so on. One was not to simply spend one's time in idle pursuits.

The war on poverty hasn't worked because there are more people voluntarily than ever before. We've spent trillions to put more people on welfare, not less.

This has been a clever Democrat game to make people dependent on them and it's worked. They've basically enslaved an entire block of people.

@ MeckTrek, 47% of the population pays no federal income tax. You're telling me that none of these people vote?

So either poverty still exists which is why people need food stamps, WIC, and housing assistance OR poverty does not exist which is why we no longer need to give out food stamps. Your logic does not make sense here. It cannot be both. If food stamps, WIC, and housing assistance are no longer needed then this is because the poverty that drives these programs no longer exists. If these services are needed then that is because the poverty that drives them still exists. You cannot have it both ways. FTR we aren't talking about all forms of welfare here. You aren't complaining about people receiving social security or medicare or using student loans or using business loans or using the GI bill. You are complaining about a select portion of the population and that particular portion of the population- to whom MT is referring- are not prone to voting. 47% of the population is not considered in this. Additionally who pays federal income tax has nothing to do w/ this discussion as welfare is not directly paid for by income tax.

"The war on poverty hasn't worked because there are more people voluntarily than ever before."

Voluntarily? Prove it!

"We've spent trillions to put more people on welfare, not less."

Samusx believes in linear economics: money is generated by the rich who pay us for serving them then the money goes to the poor where it disappears. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Not a penny was "spent on welfare", it goes around and around.

"This has been a clever Democrat game to make people dependent on them and it's worked. They've basically enslaved an entire block of people."

Samusx does not know the people dependent on welfare is himself. He demands the government take away his own "entitlements" and give his tax money to the rich.

The fact that $15.27 trillion was handed to the rich who, unlike everyone else, just kept the money is too advanced for discussion.

Peanut needs to understand that noblesse oblige is the antithesis of the rule of law. Under noblesse oblige, the noble class earns honor and the grace of God with charity to the needy, that is, everyone else. Under the force of law the rich must pay taxes.

The force of law rankles Republicans to no end. They just hate it, calling laws "regulations" and taxation "redistribution of wealth" and the Constitution "statism" and nationhood itself "collectivism". They call paid government services "entitlements" and deride those benefits as "dependency" even when doing so contradicts American source documents and Christian values. They see government as a cash cow good only for ripping off and will tell any lie to scam a buck or a vote. They see themselves as agents behind enemy lines and their lies as disinformation which disgraces the enemy in a Hogan's Heroes fantasy, a fantasy that pays off in trillions of stolen dollars.

Republicans across the board advertise their contempt for American founding documents and events. Bachmann, Boehner, Limbaugh, Cain, Palin, Gillespie, they all make gross errors in American history to show off their ignorance as a dog whistle of contempt. Just yesterday the head of the Republican Party compared the President to a murdering criminal. Are we supposed to laugh and clap our hands in delight at a new juicy lie? The bastard deserves a punch in the face. He knows that won't happen so he, and the rest of the lying filthy bunch go right on spewing their hatred and treason.

Covah, you haven't the faintest idea what I believe about economics nor who I know.

I see that once again when liberals have no leg to stand on they resort to personal attacks. See the problem with Democrats is you believe that everyone that doesn't agree with you has some evil motive and your motives are pious. Or that if only conservatives and libertarians were as smart as you they'd get it. That's why y'all never actually form any intelligible arguments. You just assume that anyone with any brains would agree with you. It's a pity that you represent such a large portion of the population driven my emotions instead of rational thought.

Sam all you have to do is explain your illogical statements. You haven't been attacked personally, but your argument has been criticized for how confusing it is. You have not provided a salient argument. All you have to do is provide it, but instead you are the one who is deflecting. All you have to explain is how you can justify saying that no one is poor therefore food stamps are unnecessary while simultaneously saying that poverty has expanded because of food stamps. Once you clarify which position you are attempting to take then you need to provide evidence of how you're coming to that conclusion. At this point in time we haven't even been able to discuss your position because you haven't made a cogent statement. You've taken both sides of an issue and both sides are opposing. It's impossible to discuss this unless you offer clarity and evidence. Otherwise you're getting angry that you're being called out on your own game. Notice how no one said you were a bad person, but rather that your argument doesn't make sense.

Mouzer, the problem is you're not actually reading what I said. You're just making a bunch of assumptions based on your bias.

What I'm saying is, the point of the war on poverty is to get people off government assistance and working. What we've done is put more people out of work and raised their quality of life to something that's above poverty. The poor in this county owe all that they have to the people that work and pay taxes.

So no, the poor in this country aren't really poor. But the war on poverty has made us much poorer as a country and these entitlements are going to be the end of our republic. We just can't afford them.

I am reading what you've said and you're still continuing to contradict yourself. We provide food stamps, WIC, and public housing so that people are not homeless and starving. The main intention is that they will be able to use these programs as a tool to move up and eventually get off these programs, which more than 80% do. The remaining 20% are usually people who cannot move up because of their age or because they are disabled. Over the years if you look at the income breakdowns of people who used to be on assistance who are no longer they've moved upwards in income. By and large those who are on food stamps move off food stamps after 10 months and move up in income brackets. The percentage of people who are shown to stay on food stamps and not move off stamps or make more money later on that otherwise could is in the low single digits, usually around 3%.

Your claim here is that the amount of people who need these programs has gone up. If you are going to make this claim then you must provide documented evidence of it. No one has lost a job because of food stamps, WIC, or public housing. You would have to show documented evidence of this claim.

samusx might like to prove his statements. Otherwise we might think he is only repeating slogans he does not understand. "entitlements are going to be the end of our republic. We just can't afford them." PROVE IT!

Handouts to the RICH are going to be the end of the republic as we know it. $15.27 trillion in handouts to the rich, $0 in handouts to the poor. That's because public benefit money does not disappear but is spent again and again, enlarging the economy while the rich just keep their handout money. And by the way those trillions in debt bought by the rich sucked up capital that could have been invested to make jobs. Handouts to the rich only make us all poorer and require higher taxes later to make up the money stolen over the last 30 years.

Peanut understands that the "Nobles" of today have no understanding of Noblesse Oblige, and they've written every loophole into every law they want loopholes in so they can further disadvantage the disadvantaged.

The superwealthy care nothing for Noblesse Oblige.

Returning public money to the people as benefits so the people vote to support that government is an affront to aristocratic privilege based on birthright and noblesse oblige.

Returning public money to the people is not an affront to Noblesse Oblige.

@ covah, Europe? I guess you're not on top of that entitlement fiasco?

And please, I beg you, learn about the fractional reserve system. Not understanding this very simple concept makes all of your statements on economics invalid.

How many foreign accounts does Mittens have? 28 at last count? Just what we've been able to dig up so far. These accounts are full of American money that has NOT been taxed. These accounts sit on foreign shores and do no good to anyone in this country. They just accumulate interest and continue to grow. We will never see a penny of this money - not in taxes, and not in actual spending. Romney is just accumulating wealth, not creating jobs, not helping the country in any way. He is, in fact, stripping the wealth out of this country.

Yay, let's elect him, so he can finish the job!

Reagan ended the war on poverty and got us the Drug Wars instead. There was no such thing as a crack baby until the mid '80s.

It wasn't welfare mothers that nearly destroyed Wall Street in '08, just like it wasn't them who crashed the stock market in '87, or 1929.

Face it. Rich people just can't be trusted with money, they wreck the economy everytime they get half a chance. If Mittens or Gingrich get elected we have the comfort of knowing what to expect because they wear their corruption like badges of honor. "Vote for me cause I'll screw the poor people BUT GOOD!" And what's not said is that they'll also screw everyone who wasn't a campaign contributor. There's your 99%.

They ought to be wearing sponsor decals.

It's hard to get excited about a race between an escapee from Madame Tussaud's wax museum, and Chuckie. Where do you put the STP sticker, on Mitten's forehead, or Gingrinch's butt?

Either way, either one, they'll decimate any hope of economic recovery we have, while lining their own pockets (and those of their cronies) to the extent they're able. Drug testing will benefit only the companies who produce the drug test kits and process the results.

Our forefathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew how we were violating people's civil liberties and personal rights routinely.

Amen!

LOL, the research on the Minerals Management Bureau has already been done and published!

What would you expect? Where the people who elected them would lose their jobs, Lawmakers slap each others fingers and "take away their 'MTV'" They all party together, so the "if you get caught first" mentality is covered buy this measure. They have the power we the people gave to them. "God mentalities struggling with the Good 'ole boy persona"

Unlike military operations, where a user could endanger lives or national security, there's no potential harm when someone on food stamps smokes a joint.